A point to ponder - Can one be an antisocial socialist? *grins*
I tend to think Socialism's rather inevitable - eventually a few people are going to "win" the capitalist game enough that money will become of less worth than doing mutual favours, thus evolving a socialist state of affairs. The question is more whether or not it can be led to gradually, preventing a lot of poverty in the interim.
Absolutely not. My arguments with people usually go something like this:
Me: You wish the federal government was more socialist?
Them: Yeah, it would be better for the people.
Me: So you believe in socialism on a national level then?
Them: Yes.
Me: Ya know, National Socialism's been tried. That little experiment didn't work out so well.
Them: What?
Me: Next time you're next to a web-linked computer, do a search for just those two words, "National Socialism" and see what you come up with.
I normally never hear from them again. The same arguments that people use to support their case for socialism can and have been used to increase government control over populations to the point of dictatorships and eugenics. Freedom is a scary thing. True freedom means not having a government, any government, dictate how you will live your life or if you life is to be continued in the face of "the greater good". But it also means that you take responsibility for yourself. You never get something for nothing. If the government "gives" you services, it will demand something in return, and that thing is always your freedoms, and sometimes your life. I would think that someone who has been designate aberrant from the "norm", people would be just a little more cautious about such things.
That argument is totally rotten. I'm not a socialist, but to equate national socialism (i.e., nazism) with socialism on a national level shows only your own ignorance.
I didn't equate national socialism with socialism on a national level. If you'll review your history, The NAZIs rose to power on the backs of the National Socialist movement. I simply provided a starting point for people to reserch the results of national socilistic policies from a historical perspective. The social policies are close enough that it is not a difficult transition. Beyond that, if the people have surrendered enough of thier freedoms to make socialistic policies work on a national level to a central government, do you really think, given an honest assessment of human nature, think that someone in government wouldn't take that power for themselves? If not it is you who are "ignorant", not I.
Nazism is a totalitarian, fascistic, nationalistic and undemocratic policy, whereas most self-professed socialists are social democrats.
Useful idiots. (Lenin)
Since you are against government, are you also against hierarchial organization?
Here you start making assumtions. I never said I was against government. I am however for LIMITED government and against consolidation of increasing amounts of power in the federal which socialism fosters at a price to the peoples freedoms. Defend your freedoms or lose them. Beynd that it disgusts me that a group of otherwise capable folks (whatever label you care to slap on them) are such whimps that they cry to the federal "oh please take care of me, I'm sooooo incapable of taking care of myself". Punks. There are some who genuinely need government services, no doubt. But to make socilistic policies blanket (re "universal health care", etc.) will have unintended consiquences in terms of loss of personal freedoms, regressive taxes, and a net loss of actual services availlible (see Canadian socialized medical system sending high risk pregnancy cases to America for lack of services in Canada).
LOL......
Well argued, but I still have to disagree. Not that I think I couldn't win the argument, but it's not productive (in my opinion) in this forum to get into this kind of derisive discusion. My next natural reactions include that you would make assumtions about "corruption" in my country, but not identify your own, historical arguments, political disagreements without first defining terms, etc., etc.
Interesting discusion, no doubt, but I'm new here and don't want to create enemies, so let me leave it like this: I don't like having anyone or any thing interfering in my life, especialy a faceless government. I am a staunch individualist (a frontier type) and see Socialism in general as a danger to it. You have your own beliefs. I respect them, though I disagee and see positive danger in the practical application. We'll see how it plays out in reality.
Having said that, it might be interseting to have a purely political forum listing from the main web page. I would be particularly interested in seeing how discusions about Islam vs. Western cultures would play. Maybe later.
Here you start making assumtions. I never said I was against government. I am however for LIMITED government and against consolidation of increasing amounts of power in the federal which socialism fosters at a price to the peoples freedoms. Defend your freedoms or lose them.
The historical lesson of the past is that a consolidation of power in the hands of a few resulted from national social policies. Here there is no doubt.
Perhaps such policies went against human nature and thus were easily corruptible.
Beynd that it disgusts me that a group of otherwise capable folks (whatever label you care to slap on them) are such whimps that they cry to the federal "oh please take care of me, I'm sooooo incapable of taking care of myself". Punks.
Here's the problem. When governments make economic policy, and trade agreements that function as a short sighted attempt to enrich a few then the idea of the greater good or social justice is thrown into the waste bin.
For example, take the American national debt- Chinese trade cycle. America becomes more and more of a debtor nation while China pegs it's Yuan on the American dollar. In a logical system, it would be much wiser to trade with cheaper countries.
{In saying this I'm not attempting to ignore the poverty in those other countries. I'm just stating a logical fact}
Yet, noones trades outside this system because China has authoritarian control over her markets and can produce the goods cheaper irregardless of the exchange rate.
A so-called communist, authoritarian government has thus been placed in the position of factory to the world completely nullifying any Adam Smith style, free-trade talk which can be thrown my way.
There are some who genuinely need government services, no doubt. But to make socilistic policies blanket (re "universal health care", etc.) will have unintended consiquences in terms of loss of personal freedoms, regressive taxes, and a net loss of actual services availlible (see Canadian socialized medical system sending high risk pregnancy cases to America for lack of services in Canada).
I understand your point. Yet, I see the problems such as in France as a logical outgrowth of a world economy in trouble. I would throw the pension problems in America and Great Britain in the same basket.
Free trade policies as described by Adam Smith or as revised by Ricardo don't describe a global economy in which there is one producer nation.
Socialistic policies as described by Karl Marx don't take into account the banking-capital creation cycle, but rather pit the worker against the boss.
Taking a Tory, free-market approach {markets free of any sort of regulation} denies the concept of social justice in any regards.
Labelling concepts in the form of a conditioned response will also not solve the underlying problem, that being international trade.
I fancy myself a Liberal Socialist, "Liberal" in this context meaning "Liberal Democracy" and "I think Marxism is crap."
My "ideal" society is one with a Market Socialist (co-op based free enterprise) economy in a participatory liberal democracy.
well, i would consider myself a socialist, but there are a few ideals that i follow:
Directly-democratic form of government, with many protections and lots of public spending
Cooperative ownership of most commerce, industry (the means of production)
No significant restraint on ownership of property/items
High Wage:cost-of-living ratio
"(ie that criminals shouldn't be punished, that people's fears about crime and anti-social behaviour should be dismissed etc), "
What progressive or liberal person ever said that?
Probably me.
for minor crimes it the price to the state for keeping someone in prison or enforcing any punishment is far greater then the price to society.
It costs the Scottish Prison Service £37, 000 to keep a prisoner incarcerated for a year. Something like 62% of those imprisoned on short sentences will reoffend within 2 years.
I really don't want to get started on my politics regarding the prison system in the UK, as I don't have the mental energy to thrash it out with anyone. But our system here is a joke. We throw people in prison for days for fine defaults and imprison women because we can't provide adequate childcare for them to attend community service. So social services can pay more to keep the kid(s) in foster care whilst Mum is packed off to HM Cornton Vale where
98% of all admissions have a drug problem. That they're not actually in prison long enough to get addressed effectively.
And David d*ckwipe Cameron wants to add another 5000 prison places? So there you go, if you want more prison sentences, there's another £185000000 of taxpayers money to seem 'tough on crime' when all its doing is perputating reoffence. When effective community service models have more impact. Look at the Red Hook, NY project.
Sometimes I think if the avid readers of the Sun and the Daily Mail would just admit that they've had a lobotomy, some aspects of this country would be in a better state
we also wouldn't have that twat Cameron sniffing around no 10 and that idiot Salmond running around the Scottish Executive/Government (who cares?) trying to enforce independence on us when we've never really picked up since the 90s.
Socialism as an ideology derived from Marxism is bad. Socialism as an ideology that tries to improve the situation of the working class is good. I am either anti-socialist or pro-socialist, depending on the definition.